DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20, 23, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petersen (US PGPub 2021/0242686).
As to claim 16
Petersen discloses a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20).
As to claim 17
Petersen discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the determining of the optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant includes performing:
one or more simulations of renewable power generation perturbations; and
one or more simulations of component and/or power generating unit trips (see paragraph 0079, lines 1-6).
As to claim 18
Petersen discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the renewable power generation perturbations and/or the trips have a duration lower than an hour, preferably lower than thirty minutes (see paragraph 0094, lines 4-6).
As to claim 19
Petersen discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the determining of the optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant includes optimizing the sizing of the hybrid power plant further based on results of the one or more simulations (see paragraph 0069, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0112, lines 1-8).
As to claim 20
Petersen discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising performing a hybrid dynamic transient analysis of the determined optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant, the analysis comprising a dynamical stability study of the hybrid power plant based on the one or more profiles, wherein optionally the analysis further comprises a transient analysis study that is based on the dynamical stability study (see paragraph 0091, lines 17-19 and paragraph 0113, lines 1-4).
As to claim 23
Petersen discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising determining a layout of the hybrid power plant based on the optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0005, lines 1-6).
As to claim 25
Petersen discloses a computer-implemented method for upgrading a real-world hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), the method comprising:
performing a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), the method for optimizing the sizing comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20),
thereby determining an optimal hybrid sizing of the real-world hybrid power plant (post-processing; see paragraph 0112, line 5) (see paragraph 0112, lines 1-5); and
determining, based on the optimal hybrid sizing, one or more renewable power generating units to be integrated in the real-world hybrid power plant and/or an improvement of one or more existing renewable power generating units of the real-world hybrid power plant (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16; paragraph 0112, lines 1-5; and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20).
As to claim 26
Petersen discloses the method for upgrading of claim 25, further comprising, in the real-world hybrid power plant:
integrating the determined renewable power generating units to the real-world hybrid power plant; and/or
performing the improvement of the one or more existing renewable power generating units (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24, and 27-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US PGPub 2021/0242686) in view of Skjelmose et al. [Skjelmose] (US PGPub 2022/0060025).
As to claim 21
Petersen discloses the method as cited in claim 16; however, Petersen fails to specifically disclose the method wherein the selecting of the power storage technology for the hybrid power plant comprises combining several storage types.
Skjelmose discloses a method where a power storage technology (energy storage BES; see Fig. 3) for a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant 100, see Figs. 1-3) comprises combining several storage types (see paragraph 0022, lines 18-21).
Petersen and Skjelmose are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is optimizing hybrid power plants. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Petersen’s invention with Skjelmose’s in order to use multiple BESs for Petersen’s hybrid power plant, since doing so would provide additional and sufficient storage of energy.
As to claim 22
Petersen and Skjelmose disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the power demand further includes a demand for heat and/or a demand for hydrogen (see Skjelmose paragraph 0016, lines 1-7; hydro and thermal energy).
As to claim 24
Petersen and Skjelmose disclose the method of claim 16, wherein:
selecting the power production technology comprises selecting one or more power production technologies among: wind turbines, PV panels, thermal solar panels, gas turbines, diesel engines, gas engines, steam turbines, combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), biomass units, biogas units, boilers, fire heaters, heat pumps, electrolysers technologies, including PEM electrolysers, alkaline electrolysers, and/or SOFC electrolysers, waste heat recovery units (WHRU), and/or heat recovery steam generators; and/or selecting the power storage technology comprises selecting one or more power storage technologies among: flywheels, BESS (battery energy storage systems), redox flow batteries, hydrogen storage units, power-to-X units, latent heat storage units, sensible heat storage units, CAES (compressed air energy storage) units, and LAES (liquid air energy storage) units (see Petersen paragraph 0002, lines 1-6 and Skjelmose paragraph 0016, lines 1-7).
As to claim 27
Petersen discloses a computer-implemented method for designing a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8) comprising renewable power generating units (solar and wind), the method comprising:
performing a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant, comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20),
thereby determining an optimal hybrid sizing of the hybrid power plant (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20); and
determining, based on the optimal hybrid sizing and/or a size of the renewable power generating units (see paragraph 0069, lines 1-3).
However, Petersen fails to specifically disclose the method designing the hybrid power plant comprising gas turbines and determining the optimal hybrid sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the size of the gas turbines.
Skjelmose discloses a method designing a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant 100, see Figs. 1-3) with varying renewable energy generating unit including units based on coal and hydrocarbon gas (see paragraph 0023, lines 4-8).
Petersen and Skjelmose are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is optimizing hybrid power plants. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Petersen’s invention with Skjelmose’s in order to include fossil fuel type renewable energy generating units to Petersen’s hybrid power plant, since doing so would implement gas turbines.
As to claim 28
Petersen discloses a device comprising a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing:
a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20); and/or
a computer-implemented method for upgrading a real-world hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), the method comprising:
performing a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8), the method for optimizing the sizing comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20),
thereby determining an optimal hybrid sizing of the real-world hybrid power plant (post-processing; see paragraph 0112, line 5) (see paragraph 0112, lines 1-5); and
determining, based on the optimal hybrid sizing, one or more renewable power generating units to be integrated in the real-world hybrid power plant and/or an improvement of one or more existing renewable power generating units of the real-world hybrid power plant (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16; paragraph 0112, lines 1-5; and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20); and/or
a computer-implemented method for designing a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant; see paragraph 0011, line 8) comprising renewable power generating units (solar and wind), the method comprising:
performing a computer-implemented method for optimizing a sizing of a hybrid power plant, comprising:
providing:
one or more renewable power generation profiles (solar irradiation profile and wind speed profile; see Fig. 7/WTG Active Power, see Fig. 10a and PV Active Power, see Fig. 10b) for the hybrid power plant, the one or more profiles including one or more subminute profiles (Time, see Figs. 10a and 10b/intra-hour power variations; see paragraph 0094, lines 6-7/relevant time domain profiles; see paragraph 0100, line 6); and
a power demand (load demand; see Fig. 10a), the power demand including a demand for electricity (see paragraph 0039, lines 8-11);
selecting a hybrid power production technology (WTG or PV power factor rating) for the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles and on the power demand (see paragraph 0019, lines 6-11 and paragraph 0043, lines 14-19);
selecting a power storage technology (BESS converter rating; see paragraph 0073, line 2) for the hybrid power plant based on the selected hybrid power production technology (see paragraph 0073, lines 1-4); and
determining an optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the provided one or more profiles, on the power demand, on the selected hybrid power production technology, and on the selected power storage technology (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20),
thereby determining an optimal hybrid sizing of the hybrid power plant (see paragraph 0011, lines 12-16 and paragraph 0113, lines 13-20); and
determining, based on the optimal hybrid sizing and/or a size of the renewable power generating units (see paragraph 0069, lines 1-3).
However, Petersen fails to specifically disclose the device designing the hybrid power plant comprising gas turbines and determining the optimal hybrid sizing of the hybrid power plant based on the size of the gas turbines.
Skjelmose discloses a device designing a hybrid power plant (hybrid power plant 100, see Figs. 1-3) with varying renewable energy generating unit including units based on coal and hydrocarbon gas (see paragraph 0023, lines 4-8).
Petersen and Skjelmose are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is optimizing hybrid power plants. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Petersen’s invention with Skjelmose’s in order to include fossil fuel type renewable energy generating units to Petersen’s hybrid power plant, since doing so would implement gas turbines.
As to claim 29
Petersen discloses the device of claim 28, wherein, in the method for optimizing the sizing, the determining of the optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant includes performing:
one or more simulations of renewable power generation perturbations;
one or more simulations of component and/or power generating unit trips (see paragraph 0079, lines 1-6).
As to claim 30
Petersen discloses the device of claim 29, the renewable power generation perturbations and/or the trips have a duration lower than an hour, preferably lower than thirty minutes (see paragraph 0094, lines 4-6).
As to claim 31
Petersen discloses the device of claim 29, wherein the determining of the optimal sizing of the hybrid power plant includes optimizing the sizing of the hybrid power plant further based on results of the one or more simulations (see paragraph 0069, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0112, lines 1-8).
As to claim 32
Skjelmose discloses the device of claim 28, wherein the device further comprises a processor (data processors and/or digital signal processors; see paragraph 0083, lines 4-5) coupled to the data storage medium (data storage medium; see paragraph 0045, lines 1-2).
As to claim 33
Skjelmose discloses the device of claim 29, wherein the device further comprises a processor (data processors and/or digital signal processors; see paragraph 0083, lines 4-5) coupled to the data storage medium (data storage medium; see paragraph 0045, lines 1-2).
As to claim 34
Skjelmose discloses the device of claim 30, wherein the device further comprises a processor (data processors and/or digital signal processors; see paragraph 0083, lines 4-5) coupled to the data storage medium (data storage medium; see paragraph 0045, lines 1-2).
As to claim 35
Skjelmose discloses the device of claim 31, wherein the device further comprises a processor (data processors and/or digital signal processors; see paragraph 0083, lines 4-5) coupled to the data storage medium (data storage medium; see paragraph 0045, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights